30th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
The Initial Performance of Commonly Used Primary Support on Us
Coal Mines
Anthony (Sam) Spearing,
Spearing, A.
Associate Professor
SouthernGadde, M.
Illinois University
Reisterer, J.
Carbondale, IL
Lee, S.
Murali Gadde, Senior Manager Ray, A.
Peabody Energy
St Louis, MO
Shane Lee, Mining Engineer
20 Mile Coal Mine
Peabody Energy
Steamboat Springs, CO
ABSTRACT
U.S. coal mines’ primary roof supports typically consist of
passive resin bolts; however, the use of active bolt systems
is increasing. Despite this widespread use, a comparative
performance evaluation of these bolt systems has not been done
under similar geologic conditions. The performances of three
commonly used primary bolt systems were investigated: fully
grouted passive rebar, fully grouted tension rebar (using two speed
setting resin), and resin-assisted rebar with mechanical anchors.
In order to investigate the performance of these bolts, strain
gauged bolts of all three types were installed at three different coal
mines as part of a larger research project funded by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). This paper
addresses the initial installation bolt loads measured at these
mines. Analysis of the data showed much lower installed loads on
active bolts than is traditionally assumed. It appears that the active
load on bolts bleeds off relatively quickly under geologic and
operational conditions similar to those at the studied mines. The
data also showed that within a short time span after installation,
the measured loads on active and passive bolts did not differ
significantly. This paper compares the results from over 20 bolts of
each bolt type that were all 1.8-m (6-ft) -long, 20-mm (0.804-in)
nominal diameter Grade 75 rebar and discusses the relevance and
shortcomings of the data and bolt performance.
Introduction
There are several different types of primary roof support used
to maintain stable mine workings and safely extract the coal. The
major types of roof bolts used in U.S. coal mines can be grouped
into three categories: fully grouted passive rebar (FGPR), fully
grouted tension rebar (FGTR), and resin-assisted mechanical
anchor (RMAB). Occasionally, partially grouted tension rebar
is also used. The vast majority (> 90%) of the approximately 68
million roof bolts installed annually in U.S. underground coal
mines use resin cartridges (Tadolini and Mazzoni, 2006). Among
the bolts that use resin, the most popular is the fully grouted rebar
bolt, which is considered a passive (untensioned) support. In fact,
in 2005 it was estimated that about 68% of all the bolts used in
U.S. were passive rebar bolts (Tadolini and Mazzoni, 2006). The
other two classes of roof bolts, considered active systems, apply
some amount of load to the roof at the time of installation. Even
1
Anil Ray, Geotechnical Engineer
Peabody Energy
St Louis, MO
though, conceptually speaking, all the major active bolt systems
used today were available at least since early 1960s (McLean and
McKay, 1964), recent technological advances in resin and bolt
design have made these systems more useful and reliable. The
same 2005 survey by Tadolini and Mazzoni (2006) indicated that
about 26% of all bolts used in the U.S. were active bolts that used
some resin. Generally, it is thought that active anchors are superior
in roof support performance except in highly laminated weak roof.
The assumption is that since an active system applies some pre-
tension to the roof, it will provide a more stable roof beam. There
is, however, a lack of real data to show the actual differences in
performance between passive and active primary rock bolts under
similar geologic conditions.
In evaluating the performance of roof bolts that use some
form of grouting, the preferred approach from the earliest days
is installing strain gauges along the length of the bolt. Parker and
Caverson (1951) were one of the first to instrument roof bolts
underground. However, instrumentation that has close resemblance
to today’s strain-gauge based methods was perhaps first used in the
U.S. for resin bolts by Sawyer and Karabin (1975). In their study,
three pairs of resistance-type strain gauges were used for axial load
measurement. Similar strain-gauge instrumented bolts were used at
a Virginia coal mine by Lundy et al. (1983) to study axial, bending,
and shear strain distributions on fully grouted bolts. Based on
these results, they concluded that bolts must be designed such that
strata separations are minimized. These researchers also felt that
a system to evaluate bolted roof might just comprise differential
sag stations because the roof bolt loads were directly correlated to
strata separations.
In a major study, Signer and Jones (1990) tested fully grouted
roof bolts with strain gauge instrumentation. The instrumented
bolts were calibrated using a uniaxial tension machine in order to
eliminate factors such as the area not being well defined in a slotted
bolt, strain gauge alignment being critical to obtain accurate results,
and different types of steel allowing variations in hardness to occur.
The 12 fully grouted instrumented bolts were tested in a longwall
mining operation and were installed in a two-entry gateroad roof.
As both adjacent panels were mined, the monitoring of the bolts
continued. The instrumented bolts were used as secondary support,
because the primary support consisted of 1.8 m (6 ft) grouted bolts
in a 1.2 m x 1.2-m (4 ft x 4-ft) pattern. The study provided useful
 30th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
data in terms of how fully grouted passive bolts would perform
when the strains increased significantly as the longwalls passed
and how well they would transfer their loads to the roof rock. The
axial loads over time, as well as the bending over time, is important
data in understanding the behavior of certain types of roof bolts in
certain conditions.
In a comparative study using two different bolt systems, Signer
et al. (1993) instrumented fully grouted passive rebar and resin-
assisted mechanical anchor bolts at a longwall mine in Alabama.
In-mine observations indicated a slightly superior performance
from the active bolts. However, the yield capacity of the active
bolts was significantly higher than the passive ones. Analysis of
the bolt loads indicated that except for a few localized readings,
the overall behavior of tensioned and passive bolts did not differ
significantly. The field data also showed that owing to the higher
stiffness of the fully grouted bolts, they were loaded rapidly when
compared to the active bolts.
Stankus and Guo (1997) investigated how point-anchored,
fully tensioned resin bolts could improve mine roof stability.
Their study investigated whether the length of the bolts and the
tension applied to the bolts at installation were utilized to their full
potential. Their test involved a longwall mine where instrumented
test areas were located in the longwall gateroads. The plan was to
monitor the instrumented areas as long as possible and analyze and
validate the data using a computer model. There were 72 rows of
three instrumented strain gauge bolts. They installed sonic probe
extensometers and convergence stations and utilized roof scope
holes. However, the intersections were not included when testing
the bolts. In an attempt to maintain the same machine torque
on every test bolt without hindering production, anti-friction
washers were used to create the necessary tensions. Extensive
underground load cell testing was implemented to assure that the
correct tensions would be applied. Cores 3.7 m (12 ft) in length
were taken from the roof at each mid-pillar area. These cores were
tested for uniaxial compressive strength, Young’s modulus, and
Poisson’s ratio. Validation of the computer modeling was based
mainly on comparing roof sag and beam deflection measurements
from the field with data from the computer modeling. The relevant
conclusions to this study were
•  The longer the bolt, the larger the observed deflection.
•  The smallest beam deflections could be found when using the
same length bolts, but with the higher installation tension.
•  A smaller beam deflection within the bolting range induced
smaller beam deflection above the bolting range. This was
created by bolts with higher installed tensions.
•  The larger the bolt, the larger the load that will be applied to
the bolt.
In another study, Signer and Lewis (1998) conducted field work
with 16 strain-gauged resin bolts in a two-entry longwall gateroad.
Their results indicated significant roof movement within the bolted
horizon. When the roof movements were sufficient enough, it was
found that the yield capacity of the roof bolt was exceeded. In
this study, Signer and Lewis also installed some partially grouted
cable bolts to determine if they could be used to improve roof
stability. Most recently, Signer et al. (2003) reported results from
instrumented strain gauges that captured load changes during face
advance and cross-cut breakthrough. The data from this study
not only captured how the magnitude of bolt loads changed with
2
nearby mining, but also showed how different bolts in a single row
differed in loading.
The Test Sites and Rock Bolts
Several significant contributions were made over the past four
decades to understand the loading experienced by resin grouted
bolts under in-situ conditions. However, within the knowledge
of the authors, all three types of major bolt systems currently
used have not been instrumented before under similar geologic
conditions. It is contended that instrumentation under comparable
conditions is necessary to understand the differences in the
supporting capabilities of these different bolt systems. As part of
a larger project funded by NIOSH (BAA number 2008-N-10989),
such comparative field work has been undertaken by the Southern
Illinois University Carbondale with the help of a major U.S. coal
producer. Three different coal mines (A, B, and C) with different
geological conditions were chosen for the project. Mines A and B
were room and pillar operations with no retreat mining and Mine C
was a longwall operation. Several strain-gauged instrumented roof
bolts of all three types were installed at each of these mines under
similar geologic conditions. While the bolts at Mines A and B were
installed as primary roof support, the bolts at Mine C were installed
as secondary support.
All three mines used #6 (19-mm (0.75-in) diameter) Grade
60 fully grouted passive rebar for their primary support. In order
to better capture the loads experienced by roof bolts, for Mines A
and B, it was decided to install the instrumented bolts as primary
support. Because slotting for mounting strain gauges will reduce
the load carrying capacity of roof bolts, and in order to achieve
similar load capacity to un-slotted #6 grade 60 bar, it was initially
decided to use #6, Grade 75 rebar for the instrumented bolts.
However, laboratory testing of slotted #6 Grade 75 bars produced
slightly lower yield capacity than desired. Therefore, to achieve
higher or comparable capacity as the pattern bolts at these mines,
it was finally decided to use 20 mm (0.804 in) diameter, Grade
75 bars for all instrumented bolts. Table 1 compares the tensile
strengths at failure of these different steels. Further, to minimize
vendor related variability, all the instrumented roof bolts, plates,
and resin used at the three test mines were donated by the
same manufacturer.
Table 1. Load comparisons for the rock bolt used.
Ultimate load
Bolt type Yield load
26,400 lbs 39,600 lbs
#6 Grade 60 forged
(minimum) (minimum)
head
11975 kg 17962 kg
0.804 Grade 75 40,600 lbs (actual) 56,727 lbs (actual)
threaded 18416 kg 25731 kg
40,400 lbs (actual) 57,600 lbs (actual)
0.804 Grade 75 bar
18325 kg 26127 kg
The instrument locations and layout were developed keeping
two aspects in mind. First, the loading experienced around mid-
pillar area and intersections must be captured. Second, the different
types of bolts should be placed under comparable geo-mining
conditions. In addition to the team involved directly in the project,
feedback from several NIOSH researchers with significant past
 30th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
expertise in roof bolt instrumentation was sought to develop the
instrumentation layout. The final instrumentation layouts for the
three mines are shown in Figures 1–3. As seen from Figure 1,
at Mine A, the three different types of bolts were placed in three
adjacent entries and intersections so the geologic variability was
as small as possible. Because of access and ventilation limitations,
such parallel entries were not available at Mine B. However,
at this mine, all three bolt types were installed around three
adjacent pillars in the same entry. At both Mine A and Mine B,
the primary bolts surrounding the instrumented bolts were of the
same type as the instrumented bolts. Because the gateroad at Mine
a. FGPR at mid pillar and intersection (crosscut 86)
C was already developed and well supported with primary and
secondary supports required by the mine’s roof control plan, the
instrumented bolts at this mine were installed as extra supplemental
support. Consequently, the development induced loads could not
be captured for this mine. At each of the test sites, every attempt
was made to get full column grouting for the fully grouted bolts.
Similarly, for the resin-assisted mechanical anchor bolts, the top
4 ft of the bolt was grouted with resin. As Figures 1–3 show, in
addition to instrumented bolts, some other instruments including
extensometers, shearmeters, and closuremeters were installed at
each of the study sites.

b. FGTR at mid pillar and intersection (crosscut 84)

#5 Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection

#5 Mid pillar #6 Mid pillar #7 Mid pillar

#5 Entry FGTR #6 Entry FGPR #7 Entry RMAB

c. RMAB at mid pillar and intersection (crosscut 82)

Figure 1. The instrumentation layout comprising instrumented
bolts (), multi-point extensometer (#), shearmeter (+), and
closure meter (*) at Mine A (o- normal primary bolts used by Figure 3. The instrumentation layout comprising instrumented
mine, o- FGTR , o- FGPR and o- RMAB). bolts, multi-point extensometer (#), shearmeter (+) and closure
meter (*) at Mine C (o- FGTR , o- FGPR and o- RMAB). The
primary and supplementary supports are not shown for the sake
of clarity.

Geo-mining Conditions at the Test Sites

Entry #3

XC-12
Figure 2. The instrumentation layout comprising instrumented
bolts (), multi-point extensometer (#), shearmeter (+) and closure
meter (*) at Mine B (o- normal primary bolts used by mine, o-
FGPR , o- RMAB and o- FGTR).
Mine A
XC-13 XC-14
Mine A is located in southwestern Indiana with mining
being conducted in the Danville No. 7 Coal Seam of the Dugger
Formation. The mine employs a partial extraction room and pillar
method with 6.1-m (20-ft) -wide entries and 24.3 x 24.3-m (80 x
80-ft) center to center pillars at a depth of about 97.5 m (320 ft)
in the test area. To capture local geology around the instrumented
sites, some borescope holes were drilled at the time of instrument
installation. Scoping in these holes led to the identification of local
geology shown in Figure 4 (Padgett, 2010):

•  The immediate roof was a medium gray, silty shale. Plant

fragments, kettlebottoms, and coal lenses were common in the
unit, as were some slip fractures. Including the extracted roof,
the total thickness of the unit was approximately 1.5 m (5 ft).

3
 30th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Figure 4. Roof rock lithology based on borescope near instruments site at Mine A.
•  Overlying the immediate roof was a medium dark to dark gray
shale with the contact between the two units being gradational.
The shale was generally featureless. Above the 1.8-m (6-ft)
height, the shale may have some lighter gray and possibly
sandier zones.
The immediate floor at all sites was a weak underclay bed
typical of the Illinois Basin. As Figure 4 shows, the roof geology at
the instrument sites was fairly consistent. The only difference was
in entry #7, where a minor fault of limited extent was noticed.
Mine B
Mine B is also located in southwestern Indiana with mining
being conducted in the Springfield No. 5 Coal Seam of the
Petersburg Formation. At the instrument locations, the entries are
about 5.5 m (18 ft) wide with 22.9 x 22.9 m (75 x 75 ft) center
to center pillars at a depth of about 106.7 m (350 ft). Primarily
4
based upon the borescope observations, the roof was classified into
different lithologies shown in Figure 5 (Padgett, 2010). It may be
noted that the scoping was done at only four instrument locations
at this mine. The lowest lithology was a medium gray, silty shale.
This was present over approximately half the test area and was
typically taken during mining. The thickness ranged from 0.0 to 0.3
m (0.0 to 1.0 ft) with the average thickness being 0.1 m (0.3 ft).
Overlying the gray shale was a black carbonaceous shale. The
contact with the underlying gray shale was fairly sharp. The
thickness of the unit probably ranges from 0.3 to 0.6 m (1 to 2 ft) in
the test area but due to the gradual contact with the overlying shale
unit, thicknesses are approximate. Overlying, the black shale was a
dark gray to medium gray shale with limestone lenses. The dark
gray limestone lenses were about 0.1 m (0.3 ft) but contacts were
difficult to identify, so the thicknesses should be considered
approximate. The shale progressively became lighter in color
upward. Some siderite lenses may also be present in the
 30th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Figure 5. Roof rock lithology based on borescope near instruments site at Mine B.
unit. The unit probably ranges from 2.1 to 2.4 m (7 to 8 ft) in
thickness. The uppermost unit was a medium brown to medium
gray shale. The shale appeared to be sandy with possibly some
sandstone lenses present, but dust conditions made it difficult to
conclusively identify. Also the contact with the underlying unit was
difficult to identify. The immediate floor is again the typical #5
seam underclay.
Mine C
Mine C is a longwall mine that extracts the Wadge seam in
Colorado. Considering the significant time it takes from the time
of development to longwall passage for any point in the gateroad,
the instrumented bolts at this mine could not be installed as primary
supports. Instead, the instruments were placed as additional
supplemental support. The gateroad at the instrument location was
5.8 m (19 ft) wide with 41.1 x 61.0-m (135 x 200-ft) abutment
pillars at a depth of approximately 366 m (1,200 ft). Even though
the crosscut numbers in Figure 3 change by two, in reality all the
instruments were installed in the same gateroad at pillars right next
to each other. Similar to the other two mines, primarily based on
the borescope observations, the roof was classified into different
lithologies (Padgett, 2010). One scoping hole was drilled to a depth
of 4.3 m (14 ft) at each instrumentation location. The borescope
logs at each instrument site are shown in Figure 6. The only
separations noted in the borescope holes were within 0.03 m (0.1
ft) of the broken shale layer at the bottom of the hole. Some water
was noticed in the scoped holes. There was a marked increase
in water coming from the top of the hole to the east with water
actively running from the holes 82+00 and 82+60. Hole 86+00 was
wet at the very top end of the hole.
5
Instrumentation
All the instrumentation used for this project (rock bolts,
closure meters, extensometers, tiltmeters, and dataloggers) came
from Yield Point Inc. out of Ontario, Canada. In addition to the
substantially lower cost, Yield Point was selected because it could
supply all the instrumentation needs and was willing to make any
necessary modifications to instruments as the project progressed.
Additionally, Yield Point was willing to participate in the
installations at all three mine sites, which proved very useful.
Similar to strain-gauged bolts used by past researchers, the
instrumented rock bolts for this study were first slotted along their
entire length to a depth of 3.2 mm (0.126 in) as shown in Figure 7.
Six strain gauges that were 0.46 m (18 in) long were held in place
with epoxy and positioned in the two axial machined slots parallel
to the length of the bolt. In contrast to the past studies, however,
in this research, 0.46-m (18-in) -long induction based strain
gauges were used. All the previous researchers used small length,
resistance-based, foil type strain gauges that measured a point load
at its location along the bolt. Considering that the bolts used in
this study were 1.8 m (6 ft) long, use of three pairs of 0.46-m (18-
in) -long gauges provided coverage over 75% of the bolt length.
However, because each of these long strain gauges averages the
load over that length, the resolution along the length is lost to some
extent, compared to say a bolt that uses 6 or 8 small length gauges.
All bolt electronics were housed in a stainless steel tube that
initially swaged onto the end of the bolt. During the first
installation at Mine A, it was observed that the steel tube that
protruded from each bolt head was prone to being snagged by
equipment, particularly when the continuous miner holed through
from a crosscut to create the intersection. A few bolts were lost in
this manner, and the system was changed such that the electronics
tube could be plugged into the bolt after installation and parallel to
 30th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
FGPR FGTR
Unit G RMAB

10' 10' Unit F 10' 10' 10'

9.3' 9.5'
8.5'
Unit E
7.0' 7.0' 7.0' 6.8' 6.8'
6.3'
Unit D
5' 5' 5' 5.0' 5' 4.8' 5' 5'
4.0' 4.6'
4.0' 4.0' Unit C
2.4'
2.0' 2.0''
1.4' 1.4' 1.25' Unit B
0.5' 1.0' 0.5' Unit A 0.5'
0' 0.6' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0.4' 0'
Intersection Mid-pillar Mid-pillar Intersection Mid-pillar Intersection

Figure 6. Roof rock lithology based on borescope near instruments site at Mine C (Unit A- broken shale, Unit B- shale, Unit C- sandstone
and shale inter-beds, Unit D- sandstone with minor shale inter-beds, Unit E- shale with sandstone inter-beds, Unit F- sandstone and
shale inter-beds, Unit G- shale).

Figure 8. The version used at Mine A (top) with the fixed

Figure 7. A slotted rock bolt before the strain gauges are attached.
the roof so as not to protrude. These versions are shown in Figure
8. Data collection from bolts was done using dataloggers. It was
possible to connect four bolts to a single datalogger attached on the
coal rib via cables to record the micro-strains on each bolt. The data
log boxes could be set to take the strain readings at specified
intervals (generally set hourly). A custom-developed computer
program could be linked to the boxes through a cable to extract the
data. The extracted data was exported to a spreadsheet where the
six strain readings were given in micro-strains for each bolt every
hour. The data was then manipulated to give axial strain, a shear
component, delta axial strain, and axial stretch of the bolt in
millimeters at different created nodes.
During the planning stage of the project, two different
configurations of the long strain gauges were considered. The
choice was between higher resolution of data along bolt length by
use of staggered layout shown in Figure 9A, or somewhat lower
resolution but higher accuracy in bending strain estimates by using
stacked configuration in Figure 9B. Because the total strain
measured by the gauges can comprise both axial and bending
components, past in-situ studies normally used diametrically
symmetric gauge configurations. While such a layout obviously
provides correction for bending, it is possible to miss a sharp shear
event with small strain gauges if the location of the shear is
between the two adjacent pairs of gauges. In contrast, significantly
electronic housing and the modified removable one used for the
other mines.
higher coverage with long strain gauges will reduce the chance of
missing a shear event. Further, sharp shears like those around
bedding planes will not influence the axial load measurement with
long strain gauges even if a staggered configuration like that in
Figure 9A is used (Hyett, 2009). This is because of the canceling
effect of tensile and compressive strains on either side of the
bedding plane with long strain gauges as shown in Figure 10.
Therefore, if it is suspected that all the bending in a bolt would be
due to sharp shear at a bedding plane, then either configuration in
Figure 9 would not introduce significant errors in axial load
estimation on the bolt. However, if the bending is gradual over a
certain length of the bolt, then some errors in axial load estimation
are possible with staggered gauge configuration, because the
bending correction would not be entirely accurate. In summary, it
can be argued that both small and long gauges as well as staggered
and stacked configurations have their own advantages and
limitations. At the start of the project, it was thought that higher
resolution along bolt length—albeit with some error in axial strain
estimation due to bending—was preferred, and hence staggered
configuration was used for all the bolts at Mine A. However, after
further discussions with NIOSH researchers, for the remaining two
mines, a stacked configuration was used.
The reliability of the results was an important issue and Yield
Point tested every instrumented bolt by applying known increasing
strains six times before they were sent to site. A typical result from
a specific bolt is given in Table 2.

6
 30th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
between the time the instrumented bolts were installed as primary
supports and the first readings were taken at these two mines. The
time delays were as follows:

•  Mine A: between 6 and 9 days (#7 entry having the shortest

time delay and #5 entry having the shortest).
A •  Mine B was the last of the sites instrumented. It took
considerable time because only one entry could be utilized
for mine production reasons. The average delay was 10 days
between installation and the first data reading.

The approximate face positions at the time when the first data
readings were taken on Mines A and B are shown in Figures 11 and
B
12, respectively.

Figure 9. Staggered (A) and stacked (B) strain gauges. This reading time delay between bolt installation and the first
data reading was one other reason why Mine C was chosen, even
though the instrumented support was supplemental. The gateroad
of the longwall mine was already mined and well supported,
and fresh air was present. The installation data from Mine C
was able to be collected as follows shortly after the installation
process occurred:

•  The fully grouted passive bolts (FGPR) were read 2 days after
initial installation.
•  The fully grouted active bolts (FGTR) were read 2 days after
initial installation.
•  The partially grouted active double lock bolts (RMAB) were
read 1 day after installation.

The short delay was for practical reasons, such as minimizing

the time required of the roof bolter so that the research team had
the least adverse effect on production, and the instrumented bolts
Figure 10. Canceling of bending strains on either side of a sharp
were all hooked to dataloggers after they had all been installed.
shear with a single long strain gage.

Table 2. Sample rock bolt pre-installation repeatability test.

Measured. strain
Applied strain Measured strain Measured strain Measured strain Measured strain Measured strain
6 (με)
(με) 1 (με) 2 (με) 3 (με) 4 (με) 5 (με)

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 - 1 + 0 + 0
152.5 + 152 + 160 + 156 + 157 + 157 + 154
305 + 301 + 303 + 307 + 310 + 310 + 308
610 + 605 + 617 + 614 + 617 + 615 + 612
915 + 906 + 918 + 915 + 914 + 915 + 913
1220 + 1227 + 1233 + 1230 + 1226 + 1228 + 1226
1525 + 1531 + 1536 + 1532 + 1529 + 1530 + 1529
Calculated slope 1.0045 1.0069 1.0044 1.0013 1.0021 1.0021
Calculated
-3.8464 0.9573 0.8157 2.6536 2.5154 0.628
offset

Rock Bolt Axial Load Estimation

Data Collection and Interpretation
As mentioned before, data collection from instrumented bolts
was achieved using dataloggers. However, these loggers could not
be used until fresh air was established at Mines A and B because
they were not intrinsically safe as required by the Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA). Consequently, there was a delay
The calculation to convert strain to load is as follows
(Hyett, 2010):
Bolt diameter: 20.18 mm +/− 0.5 mm (0.794 in +/− 0.020
in) (The variation in the bolt diameter is due to using rebar, not
smooth bar.)

7
 30th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Figure 11. Mine A approximate face entry positions when the
first set of data was collected.
Figure 12. Mine B approximate face entry positions when the
first set of data was collected.
Cross-sectional area of bolt: 320.0 mm2 +/− 15 mm2 (0.496 in²
+/− 0.023 in²)
Cross-sectional area of slot: 15 mm2 (0.023 in²)
Cross-sectional area of the machined rebar: 290 mm2 +/−15 mm2
(0.450 in² +/− 0.023 in²)
8
The steel modulus is 200 GPa (29 x 106 psi). So each ton load
represents a stress of the following in the slotted bolt. Each ton
(1000 kg or 8896kN) is equivalent to a bolt stress of
8896/290 = 30.67 MPa +/− 1.4MPa (4,447 psi +/− 203 psi)
The above axial stress in the bolt corresponds to an axial strain
equal to 30.67/200000
= 0.000153 +/− 0.000007 (error due to measured x-sectional
area variations).
Therefore, 153 axial microstrains (με) is 1 ton (1,000kg or 2,200
lbs) axial load on bolt.
Only the initial axial strain on installation is the focus of this
paper. As mentioned before, Mines B and C had instrumented
bolts with stacked strain gauges as shown in Figure 9B. The data
for these bolts was manipulated using the three nodes at positions
468 mm (18.4 in), 998 mm (39.3 in), and 1528 mm (60.1 in) from
the head of the bolt. The nodes roughly correspond to the midpoints
of each 0.46-m (18-in) -long strain gauge. The calculation of axial
and bending strains was similar to those used by other researchers
for diametrically symmetric gauges. The axial strain for the stacked
layout was found by adding the two opposite gauge total measured
strains and dividing by two. Gauges 1 and 4 corresponded to the
node at 468 mm (18.4 in); gauges 2 and 5 corresponded to the node
at 998 mm (39.3 in); and gauges 3 and 6 corresponded to the node
at 1528 mm (60.1 in). The following equations summarize the axial
load computation at each note for the stacked layout:
Node 1 at 468 mm (18.4 in) = (eGauge 1 + eGauge 4)/2
Node 2 at 998 mm (39.3 in) = (eGauge 2 + eGauge 5)/2
Node 3 at 1828 mm (60.1 in) = (eGauge 3 + eGauge 6)/2
Estimation of axial and bending strains for the staggered
configuration in Figure 9A is somewhat complicated in the
presence of a gradual bending as opposed to a sharp local shear,
such as that shown in Figure 10. In fact, if the bending is gradual,
a unique solution to axial and bending strains cannot be obtained
for such a layout without making some a priori assumptions about
strain distribution (Hyett, 2009). For instance, consider node 3 in
Figure 9A. With strain gauge 2, the total strain on one side of the
bar is directly measured. However, to get an estimate of total strain
on the other side in that same bolt interval, it is assumed that the
weighted average strain of gauge 4 and 5 represents the total strain.
With this assumption, the axial strain at node 3 can be computed
similarly to a stacked configuration. While this procedure for
data reduction of the staggered gauges is not entirely accurate,
comparison of the roof bolts loads at Mine A and Mine B showed
that the adopted procedure leads to a reasonable estimate of roof
bolt loads. As mentioned before, Mine A had instrumented bolts
with staggered strain gauges and Mine B, stacked. By following
the weighted averaging procedure, the axial strain at each node
in Figure 9A was computed using the following equations
(Hyett, 2009):
Node 1 at 400 mm (15.7 in) = [eGauge 1 + (eGauge 4/2)]*2/3
Node 2 at 625 mm (24.6 in) = [((eGauge 1 + eGauge 2)/2) + eGauge 4]/2
 30th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Node 3 at 850 mm (33.5 in) = [((eGauge 4 + eGauge 5)/2) + eGauge 2]/2
a. Fully Grouted Passive Rebar (FGPR)
70
Node 4 at 1075 mm (42.3 in) = [((eGauge 2 + eGauge 3)/2) + eGauge 5]/2

Distance from bolt head, inch

60 100575081
100575079
50 100375021
Node 5 at 1300 mm (51.2 in) = [((eGauge 5 + eGauge 6)/2) + eGauge 3]/2 100575082
40 100575078
100575071
Node 6 at 1525 mm (60 in) = [(eGauge 3)/2) + eGauge 6]/2 30 100575074
100575075
20 100575077

All the node locations are measured from the bolt head. 10

100575080
100575072
100575073
0
Results 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial load, Ton
The initial loads measured on all bolts at the three mines are
plotted in Figures 13 through 15. As mentioned above, there were b. Fully Grouted Tension Rebar (FGTR)
70
different time gaps between the time of installation and the first

Distance from bolt head, inch

reading at all the sites. Therefore, the data in Figures 13–15 does 60
100575003
not necessarily represent the bolt load at the time of installation. 50 100575012

This is particularly so for mines A and B where several cuts 40

100575006
100575017
were taken adjacent to the instrumented bolts from the time of 30
100375023

installation to the first data reading. However, it is reasonable to

20
assume that the first set of data at Mine C is a close representation
10
of the installed load because no mining activity occurred in
the vicinity of instrumentation in this time gap. However, the 0

possibility of very short-term tension bleed off can obviously lead 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Axial load, Ton
to inaccurate estimate of pre-load. It may be noted that the axial
load in Figures 13–15 are plotted in metric tons. Comparing with c. Resin Assisted Mechanical Anchor Bolt (RMAB)
the installed instrumentation in Figures 1–3, there were fewer 70
bolts in Figure 13–15. This was because some of the instruments
Distance from bolt head, inch

60
were damaged by the mining process, or some gauges on the bolts 100575037
50
malfunctioned. Anti-friction washers were used for the installation 100575034
100575031
40
of all active bolts. 100575041
100575030
30
100575036
Mine A 20 100575035
100575038
10 100575039
The data in Figure 13 shows that the highest initial reading 100575033
obtained at this mine is 8 tons measured by a single bolt. For all 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
other bolts, the measured axial load was less than 6 tons. The
Axial load, Ton
maximum axial load on the fully grouted passive rebar bolts
was slightly less than 3.5 tons, with a majority below 2.5 tons.
Figure 13. Initial loads on different types of bolt for Mine A.
The majority of axial loads on fully grouted active rebar varied
between 3 and 6 tons. Similarly, the vast majority of resin-assisted
mechanical anchor bolts showed axial loads between 2 and 6 tons Mine C
with one bolt recording in excess of 8 tons. For each bolt type,
there was no noticeable difference between the loading experienced Among the three mines, the initial data from this mine is
in the mid-pillar area and the intersections. more representative of the installed loads on the bolts. Figure 15
indicates that the installed loads on fully grouted passive rebar bolts
Mine B are generally less than 1 ton, except for one bolt. For both types of
active systems, the installed loads were less than 3 tons, with a vast
The axial loads on different bolt types for Mine B are shown in majority below 2 tons. This is probably because of the very friable
Figure 14. In contrast to Mine A, there is much more variability in immediate 6 in of roof strata that could have caused load shedding
axial loads at this mine. The measured loads varied mostly between as the bolts were being installed. The roof bolter was set to over
2 and 12 tons. Comparison of the three different bolt types did not 407 N-m (300 lb-ft) of torque and the washers were deformed as
reveal any significant differences in the loads experienced by the expected in all the installations of the active instrumented bolts.
passive and active systems. Similarly, no systematic difference in Similar to the other two mines, no statistically significant difference
loading was found between mid-pillar and intersection locations. was noticed between mid-pillar and intersection locations.
Apparently, given no additional mining around the instrument
sites before the first readings were taken, there should not be much
difference between entry and intersection loadings, which is what
the data indicates.

9
 30th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
a. Fully Grouted Passive Rebar (FGPR) a. Fully Grouted Passive Rebar (FGPR)
70 70
Distance from bolt head, inch

Distance from bolt head, inch

60 60
100875075 100775071
50 100875074 50 100775072
100875073 100775074
40 100875071 40 100775076
100875084
100775073
30 100875078 30 100775075
100875079
100775077
20 20
100775078

10 10

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial load, Ton Axial load, Ton

b. Fully Grouted Tension Rebar (FGTR) b. Fully Grouted Tension Rebar (FGTR)
70
70
Distance from bolt head, inch

60

Distance from bolt head, inch

100875001 60
50 100875012 100775001
100875007 50 100775002
40 100875008 100775004
100875011 40 100775005
30 100875006 100775003
100875009 30
20 100775006
100775007
20
10 100775008

10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0
Axial load, Ton 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial load, Ton

c. Resin Assisted Mechanical Anchor Bolt (RMAB)

c. Resin Assisted Mechanical Anchor Bolt (RMAB)
70
70
Distance from bolt head, inch

Distance from bolt head, inch

60
60
100875034
50 100875033 50
100775033
100875032 100775034
40 100875031 40 100775036
100875035 100775037
30 100875037 30 100775031
100875042
100775032
20 100875039 20
100775035
100875041
10 10 100775038

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Axial load, Ton Axial load, Ton

Figure 14. Initial loads on different types of bolt for Mine B. Figure 15. Initial loads on different types of bolt for Mine C.

Discussion Even after making sure the best practices were followed during bolt
installations, it is surprising to see such low installed pre-loads on
The instrumented rock bolts were costly, and therefore the roof bolts. This is particularly true at Mine C. The data in Figure
installations were carefully undertaken. In order to ensure best 18 shows that the average installed load on all three bolt types
practices were followed during bolt installations, a representative was below 2 tons, which is much less than the expected pre-load
of a resin and bolt manufacturing firm was present at all three using the traditional torque-tension ratios. At this mine, the applied
mines. It is interesting to note the large variation in the initial torque for the active bolts was about 440 N-m (325 lb-ft). At this
loads in the same bolt types especially considering that the same stage, no definitive explanation for these apparently low installed
bolting machine and bolt operators were generally used for the loads could be found. However, some potential reasons could be
installations. Therefore, it appears some random variations in
installed loads are to be expected even when the best practices 1. Despite the best possible care, it is likely that some thrust was
are followed. applied to the active bolts, thus resulting in somewhat lower
installed tension than is obtainable otherwise. Past research on
In order to better understand the initial readings taken at the active bolts shows that if some thrust is applied to the bolts at
three mines, the axial loads were averaged for each bolt type and the time of installation, then there can be a significant reduction
are plotted in Figures 16 through 18. As mentioned before, the data in installed tension as compared to the pre-load obtained at
from Mine C is the only set that can be taken as representative of zero thrust (Karabin and Debevec, 1976; Mahyera et al., 1981;
the installed load on the bolts. Given the mining activity around the Mazzoni et al., 1981). The hypothesis that some axial thrust was
instrument locations at Mine A and Mine B, the initial readings at applied at the time of installation gets some support from the
these mines include both installed and induced loading on the bolt. compressive (negative) axial strains measured on some active

10
 30th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
that length and thus depressed the peak values of a non-linear
70 load profile.
3. Another possible explanation is that in weak strata, over time,
Distance from bolt head, inch

60
some limited creep occurs such that the active bolts particularly
50 (with the higher installation loads) shed some load before the
40 FGPR first data readings were taken at Mines A and B. This is possible
FGTR as limited roof convergence had occurred subsequent to the
30
RMAB bolt installation and before the first data reading. This could be
20 a result of the mechanical key between the resin and the rock
10 surface creeping very marginally. Similar observations have
been made in Canada in other weak rock applications, but this
0
0 2 4 6 8
does not seem to occur in hard-rock anchoring application
Axial load, Ton (Hyett, 2011).
4.  At Mine C, some amount of bagging existed due to the use of
wire mesh for skin control. Additionally, the borehole scope
Figure 16. Average initial loads for different types of bolt at observations indicated some separation of strata within the first
Mine A. few inches of the immediate roof. Consequently, when higher
installed loads were applied with the active bolt systems, the
immediate few inches of roof may have fractured leading to
70 some tension bleed off.
5.  Additional contribution from any of the other factors identified
Distance from bolt head, inch

60
by Mazzoni et al. (1981) might have some bearing on the loss
50
of installed loads. This report details all the possible installation
40 FGPR
errors with rock bolts, but the most likely issue is noted in point
FGTR
30 RMAB 1 above.
20
Even though some possible causes for the measured low
10 installed loads were put forth above, it is amazing that despite
0 taking the best possible care in installation under the supervision
0 2 4 6 8 of a roof bolt manufacturer, the expected tension values were
Axial load, Ton not obtained. If that is the outcome in such carefully conducted
research, one can only wonder about the active loads during normal
production roof bolting. Therefore, in order to fully understand the
Figure 17. Average initial loads for different types of bolt at type of installed tension values obtained during normal course of
Mine B. mining, further research is necessary. The data from the current
research shows that the expected installed tension may not always
be obtained, and thus the utility of an active bolting system may not
70
be any higher than a comparable passive system.
Distance from bolt head, inch

60

50 As noted before, the initial data read at Mine A and Mine

FGPR
B included a significant amount of induced loading due to the
40
FGTR mining activity in the vicinity of the instrumented bolts. Therefore,
30 RMAB it is not possible to directly comment about the installed loads
20 achieved at these mines. Some additional work is being planned
to back compute pre-load at these mines using three-dimensional
10
computer modeling. At this stage, however, it may be possible to
0 make some general inferences about installed loads on active resin
0 2 4 6 8 bolts at Mine A. Since the difference between a passive resin and
Axial load, Ton
active resin bolt is only in the installed tension, it may be crudely
assumed that in the absence of pre-load, the axial load obtained on
an active resin bolt will be similar to that for a passive resin bolt
Figure 18. Average initial loads for different types of bolt at under similar geo-mining conditions. With this logic it is possible
Mine C. to roughly compute the installed load on active resin bolts at Mine
A by subtracting the axial load profile of the passive resin bolts.
bolts in Figure 15(b) and Figure 15(c). Resin and bolt suppliers In other words, it can be assumed that the total load on an active
could assist with more bolter training if this is in fact one of the resin bolt as equal to the sum of installed load and axial load
contributing factors. profile obtained for a passive resin bolt under similar geo-mining
2. The traditional published pre-tension values were normally conditions. If such subtraction is done in Figure 14, then it appears
obtained with point measurements either by load cells or using the installed load on the active resin bolt is between 1 and 2 tons,
small length strain gauges. Utilizing 0.45-m (18-in) -long similar to what was measured at Mine C. However, such indirect
strain gauges in this research has led to averaging of loads over estimation was not possible for Mine B because the average axial
load measured was the highest for the passive resin bolts among

11
 30th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
the three. Therefore, some localized geologic differences appear
to induce higher axial loading in the passive resin bolts at Mine B.
Further work is being conducted to better understand the bolt loads
at all three mines.
Conclusions
A major research study has been undertaken to investigate roof
bolt mechanics of three popular bolting systems under comparable
geologic conditions. Despite following the best practices to
minimize common installation related errors, initial data showed
that the installed loads obtained in real world were much lower
than expected. Some possible reasons were put forward to explain
this rather unexpected finding. More analysis is being conducted
to better understand the trends depicted by the measured bolt data.
Given the significant advantages of long strain gauges in providing
better bolt coverage, it is desirable to undertake further work to
compare their performance against traditional small length gauges.
Investigating whether load shedding does occur after installation
using resin bolts (particularly active bolts) is also needed.
Acknowledgements
The funding and support provided by NIOSH (under BAA
number 2008-N-10989) is greatly acknowledged, as is the support
given by Peabody Energy. Jennmar Corp’s help in providing the
bolts for instrumentation and the freight to Yield Point is also
appreciated. The project team also acknowledges the assistance
provided by Minova during the field installations.
References
Hyett A. (2009). Personal Communication.
Hyett A. (2010). Analysis of preliminary instrumentation data from
Mine A. Internal report for the SIUC Bolt Project, funded by
NIOSH. September.
Hyett A. (2011). Personal Communication.
Karabin G. J., Debevec W. J. (1976). “Comparative evaluation of
conventional and resin bolting systems.” Mine Enforcement
and Safety Administration. IR 1033.
Lundy D. G., Karmis M., Haycocks C. (1983). “An in situ study of
the interaction between resin bolts and the surrounding strata.”
In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Stability in Underground Mining. New York: Society of Mining
Engineers of the AIME. pp. 674–700.
Mahyera A., Kempen C. J. H. B., Conway H. P., Jones A.H. (1981).
“Controlled thrust and torque placement of mechanical anchor
bolts and their relationship to improved roof control.” In:
12
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Ground
Control in Mining. pp. 98–105.
Mazzoni R. A., Karabin G. J., Cybulski J.A. (1981). “A trouble-
shooting guide for roof support systems.” Mine Safety and
Health Administration. Informational Report No. 1237.
McLean D.C., McKay S.A. (1964). “Use of resins in mine roof
support.” Canadian Mining Journal, November.
Padgett J. (2010). Personal communication on the local geologies
at each mine site.
Parker J., Caverson B. (1951). “Resin bolts hold best with resins.”
Mining Engineering. 23(5).
Sawyer S. G., Karabin G. J. (1975). “The development and use
of resin instrumentation for the in-situ measurement of axial
loads in fully resin-grouted roof bolt.” In: Proceedings of the
First Symposium on Underground Mining. Washington, DC:
National Coal Association. pp. 90–103.
Signer S., Jones S. (1990). “A case study of grouted roof bolt
loading in a two-entry gate road.” In: Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference on Ground Control in Mining,
pp. 35–41.
Signer S. P., Lewis J. L. (1998). “A case study of bolt performance
in a two-entry gateroad.” In: Proceedings of the 17th
International Conference on Ground Control in Mining,
pp. 249–256.
Signer S. P., Mark C., Franklin G., Hendon G. (1993).
“Comparisons of active versus passive bolts in a bedded mine
roof.” In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Ground Control in Mining. pp. 16–23.
Signer S. P., Pile J., Bessinger S. (2003). “Bolt load changes
during initial face advance and cross-cut breakthrough.” In:
Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Ground
Control in Mining. [http://icgcm.conferenceacademy.com/
papers/detail.aspx?subdomain=icgcm&iid=581].
Stankus J., Guo S. (1997). “New design criteria for roof bolt
systems.” In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference
on Ground Control in Mining. pp 158–166.
Tadolini S. C., Mazzoni R. A. (2006). “Twenty-four
conferences: more than one-hundred and seventy papers;
understanding roof bolt selection and design still remains
priceless.” In: Proceedings of the 25th International
Conference on Ground Control in Mining. pp 382–389.
[http://icgcm.conferenceacademy.com/papers/detail.
aspx?subdomain=icgcm&iid=482].